SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against ,he judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby writ petition filed by him against the order of a Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Islamabad, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was employed as a Timekeeper with respondent No. 1. He was charge-sheeted on 1-11-1992 on the allegation of having misappropriated Rs.10,OC0 on 5-10-1992 and for leaving the place of his duty unauthorisedly. The petitioner submitted his reply and filed a petition before N.I.R.C. On 9-3-1994 under section 22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance (I.R.O.) for quashment of the charge-sheet. He also filed an application under sub---Regulation (2) of Regulation 32 of N.I.R.C. _ (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 that he was being victimised due to his activities in the labour union as President of I.C.I. Federation of Workers' Union and General Secretary of I.C.I. Employees' Union. The Chairman of the Commission by order dated 22-6- 1994 quashed the charge-sheet issued on 1-11-1992. The respondent filed appeal before the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. By majority of to to one allowed it holding that the charge-sheet was issued for valid reason and that it had no connection with the trade union activities of the petitioner. However, one learned Member dissented from it. The petitioner then filed Constitutional petition challenging the order of the Full Bench of N.1.R.C. Which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. During hearing it transpired that in pursuance of the charge-sheet the petitioner was removed from the employment of the company. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this order has been challenged in the Labour Court where the case is pending. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge observed as follows:-- "The validity of the charge-sheet or correctness of allegations contained therein are to be adjudicated upon by a competent forum. For the present, no material exists on record to show that the charge-sheet was issued on considerations other than those contained in the charge-sheet itself. The view taken by the majority of the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Is nor defective or slanted in any manner."
3. Mr: Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the facts, charge- sheet should have been quashed. In view of the fact that the Full Bench, NIRC on appreciation of facts before it had not found anything to justify quashment of charge-sheet and the same not suffering from any illegality or infirmity or lack of jurisdiction was upheld by the High Court. This aspect therefore cannot be pressed in service at this stage.
4. We have noted that the petitioner has been removed from service, which has been challenged in the Labour Court where issues relating to the correctness and legality of the charge-sheet and the proceedings taken against the petitioner will be considered at length. The petitioner will have an opportunity to examine witnesses and the proper forum is the Labour Court where all questions should be decided. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the judgment for the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. And the impugned judgment, the proceedings before the Labour Court will be prejudiced, but in, view of the observations made in the impugned judgment and quoted above, such apprehension is misconceived. Leave is refused.